...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just about
every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing Gary's
manuscript. In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine
fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either project
our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we are
taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother. Jung wrote about this as well; he once suggested that the
most important political act any individual could undertake was to
withdraw his projections from the world.

So whenever Gene tries to attack me, Gary, Ken Wapnick, or the fence
post, I can tell that he's having a pretty terrific struggle with
what the psychologists call "self-esteem." I call him a fine fellow --
and I suggest that you all do, too, in your own words -- because I
think that's the real truth of the matter and because he can
obviously use some strokes.

But Gary and I should probably apologize for always bringing such
fine fellows in our wake; we're the ones who came out with this book
and have subsequently joined public discussion groups like we have
nothing to hide. Do something noticeable like that, and you'll always
get a few fine fellows on your case sooner or later. Marianne used to
participate in her own groups a little, but I can't rememember the
head of HarperCollins, her first publisher, coming out to back her up
(LOL)!

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way he
goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Cheers,
D. Patrick Miller
Fearless Books

From: "sa_grippe" <sa_grippe@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:10 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Actually, Gene's being nice so
far...

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way he
goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Actually, Pat, the copyright ends, in certain places, on Jan 1St 2007 no
matter what - and there is absolutely nothing that Ken or FACIM can do about
it. Helen for purposes of copyright is the author of ACIM and she died on
February 9,1981. Many countries in the world are only signatory to the UCC
(universal copyright convention) which only protects a work for 'life of the
author plus 25 years'. So, Ken and FACIM are fighting for three and a half
years more control - at most. They just won't be able to take down
web-sites hosted in certain countries after that date or stop ACIM being
published in those countries either. (And there is even a strong rumour
that the copyright on ACIM reverts automatically to Helen's heirs at the end
of this year.)

~
Stephen

Strange...

I just came from "the newsgroup from hell" (and seems like calling
it this, means you are aware of what it's like- so why are you
surprised what you find there?) and looked down here, thinking maybe
there would be some kind of real ACIM discussion going on.

I haven't gotten enough into the book yet to see if it's all that
ACIM based, that this might be discussed here.

But, I once thought Jeanette's board was for "serious spiritual
discussion" (ACIM, etc) and asked a question on it, Jeanette jumped
on me saying it was against her rules. I went over the rules
pointing out it wasn't, and she came up with a new rule about
discussing her rules was against the rules.

Because of this she spent weeks telling people on the ng how I was
the only one (of two) people who had their IP numbers banned on her
board. (I never tried posting on there again so don't know if this is
true).

What I had asked there was about a quote I'd seen elsewhere "If
Jesus can't change her, why do you think YOU can?"

And, the point,(for discussion) would Jesus try and "change"
someone, or accept them as they are?

I've also thrown out ACIM topics and questions for possible
discussion on the ng and they mainly get ignored.

I happened on The Jerry Springer Show on t.v. last night and the
few mins of it I watched reminded me so much of the TRCM ng (LOL)

So, I came here, thinking maybe there were real discussion going on
and not getting into personalities and "who did what" and who is
getting unfairly treated and a victim of the world they see (by a
Brother in Christ)... and find the ng being discussed like so much
gossip.

"The ng from hell". Wouldn't hell (and however we see people on it)
be coming from the perception of the person seeing it and deciding
it's whatever and however it is?

I didn't follow the discussion about Gary's book all that closely
when it was the hot topic on the ng, but how I remember Gene being
involved in it, didn't he question some of the facts in the book?
Like physics and mathematical statements?

This is what started one of the arguements and Gene's conclusion
that the book was a hoax.

I remember questioning how come Gary had been living this (which
was a big part of his life) for 9 years, behind his wife's back, not
telling her, and apparently she didn't mind this after she found out.

It seemed like a logical question. The book was being discussed on
the ng at the time.

Also, some felt it backed up (in some way) Ken Wapnick's side of
the copyright issue, and also easily got approval for publication
from the foundation? (again, I haven't read enough of it to see what
this refers to, if anything) But seems like this might a legitimate
feeling from those who read it or even heard about it.

Then Gary got defensive and angry and left, and Gary's wife started
writing passionate posts about how wonderful the book was-using a
fake name- saying she wasn't at all connected with Gary, the book or
Fearless Publications, and just an objective, impartial reader who
loved the book and thought it was wonderful. Who had also sent in
an "impartial"review about it to Amazon (not saying she was the
author's wife).

All of which didn't help create good feelings about the book and it
being whatever was being claimed it was. And what it was published as.

Then there was the recent post, again by Gary's wife, claiming to
be a member of Endeaver Academy and telling how many copies they had
bought and how wonderful it was.

When this came to light, it was supposedly a cute little joke.

There has also been talk that maybe the mysterious "Nelson" who
started this egroup- but doesn't seem to be a part of it, is also
Gary's wife, Karen. Based on her past ways of promoting the book.

Maybe the ng isn't so much "from hell" as people feel more free to
tell the truth and how they honestly feel and think there.

And people who are into playing games and seeing lies and fraud
as "cute" aren't happy with it.

WHY can't anyone read a book and ask questions about it and come to
their own conclusions about it- whatever those are, like Gene?

Something is wrong with him because of this?

I was just thinking the ng was similar to The Jerry Springer-
Tabloid t.v. show, but reading on here, I'm now seeing it as at least
honest and sincere about what it is at the time.

Whatever that is.

It's not like anyone from the ng CAN'T come here and read what
people say about them here- and see it being discussed here. Like
maybe everyone here will be on the same side- about how people on the
ng from hell are like? So, Gene, for example wouldn't want to come
here and say how he honestly feels and thinks, because he wouldn't
get any support, here? They must be wrong if someone has different
opinions/questions about the book, the story, the facts in it, and
the way it's promoted?

And you wonder why some think there must be something wrong with
the book when those involved with it are so defensive and quick to
attack others (and lie/fraud) because of it?

If it's such a great book, why can't it just stand on it's own, and
who cares if a few people criticize it?

Don't mind me, I'm used to "the newsgroup from hell" where everyone
is free to speak their mind and say how they honestly think and feel.


~ Carrie




--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just

about

every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing

Gary's

manuscript. In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine
fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either

project

our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we

are

taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother. Jung wrote about this as well; he once suggested that the
most important political act any individual could undertake was to
withdraw his projections from the world.

So whenever Gene tries to attack me, Gary, Ken Wapnick, or the

fence

post, I can tell that he's having a pretty terrific struggle with
what the psychologists call "self-esteem." I call him a fine

fellow --

and I suggest that you all do, too, in your own words -- because I
think that's the real truth of the matter and because he can
obviously use some strokes.

But Gary and I should probably apologize for always bringing such
fine fellows in our wake; we're the ones who came out with this

book

and have subsequently joined public discussion groups like we have
nothing to hide. Do something noticeable like that, and you'll

always

get a few fine fellows on your case sooner or later. Marianne used

to

participate in her own groups a little, but I can't rememember the
head of HarperCollins, her first publisher, coming out to back her

up

(LOL)!

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way

he

goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Cheers,
D. Patrick Miller
Fearless Books

开云体育

Very good post, Carrie. And for everyone who's reading this, Carrie is a
Blue Book student - just like you guys. And she's not the only one who saw
Gary and his wife's games. I'll even add that there have been times when we
haven't seen eye to eye, but I like her really. She's a little bit, ahem,
silly but mostly in a nice kind of way and she wouldn't hurt a soul.

So you see folks it is possible to get along with a Course student who might
well not believe as you do or even study the same version as yourself.
Carrie and I are poles apart theologically/metaphysically. You just have to
decide that you're not going to resent people for just being different.

Either that or there is always the 'delete button'.

~
Stephen



From: "starchild1124" <starchild1124@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Actually, Gene's being nice so
far...

Strange...

In a message dated 7/16/2003 2:29:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, starchild1124@... writes:

Don't mind me, I'm used to "the newsgroup from hell" where everyone
is free to speak their mind and say how they honestly think
and feel.

For the first time in a long time I believe in the saying "ignorance is bliss." :-)

I have no clue as to what this lady has been saying since she has been on this listserv, and I have decided to try not to understand. I confuse myself enough. :-)

Peace
Ossie

P.S. With the exception of one post that she spoke about the transition of Eric Butterwork ... for some reason he crossed my mind while I was in Atlanta and was wondering if he was still alive or not. His ministry in NYC made a big impact on my life which gradually led me to the Course although at the time it was something that his ministry did not endorse.


"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just

about

every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing

Gary's

manuscript.

I did no such thing. I questioned your integrity, your intelligence,
your education, and your editing ability--all with good reason.

In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine

fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either

project

our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we

are

taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother.

Then you might have said this sincerely.

开云体育

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"
<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

I didn't follow the discussion about Gary's book all that closely
when it was the hot topic on the ng, but how I remember Gene being
involved in it, didn't he question some of the facts in the book?
Like physics and mathematical statements?

This is what started one of the arguements and Gene's conclusion
that the book was a hoax.

It's not what started it, but the numerous factual errors and
outright absurdities in it are enough by themselves to show the book
is a hoax.

There has also been talk that maybe the mysterious "Nelson" who
started this egroup- but doesn't seem to be a part of it, is also
Gary's wife, Karen. Based on her past ways of promoting the book.

Nelson is King Log. I think Karen would more likely be Queen Stork.

开云体育

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just

about

every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing

Gary's

manuscript.

I did no such thing. I questioned your integrity, your

intelligence,

your education, and your editing ability--all with good reason.

Hmm... I seem to remember "hoaxer," "liar," and "fraud," just for
starters. "Idiotic" and "stupid", or words to that effect, were in
there somewhere. On the other hand, I have never questioned your
integrity, intelligence, education, etc., because I feel no need to
do so. I learned about projection a long time ago.

In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine

fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either

project

our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we

are

taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on

a

brother.

Then you might have said this sincerely.

And that's what you haven't understood from the beginning, Gene -- I
was always utterly sincere. I think you are a fine fellow (a holy son
of God, that is) who lapses into some fearful name-calling and
judgments every now and then. The fears you have, and that you
frequently project, prevent you even from seeing when someone wishes
you well, and blesses your true nature. That's OK for now; you'll get
over it eventually.

How you feel about DISAPPEARANCE is admittedly not very significant
to me, however. As a publisher, I have to pay attention to how *most*
people respond to the work I do. On the first printing of
DISAPPEARANCE, almost sold out now, the positive/negative votes seem
to be running about 1995 to 5, or an approval rate of 99.75% (Please
check my math; it wasn't my strong suit in school.) I can live with
that!

I've also noticed the oddest synchronicity: every time you start
making noise on discussion groups about Gary's book, my direct
website sales go through the roof! It's happened at least three times
now in a very distinct, unmistakable manner: same-day feedback. So
thanks, guy -- your karma works in most mysterious ways!

dpm
www.fearlessbooks.com

In a message dated 7/16/2003 5:37:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, sa_grippe@... writes:

It's happened at least three times
now in a very distinct, unmistakable manner: same-day
feedback. So
thanks, guy -- your karma works in most mysterious ways!

I guess there is truth in the saying "No such thing as bad publicity" :-)


"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

开云体育

From: mstreet

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Actually, Gene's being nice so far...

?

>>Very good post, Carrie.? And for everyone who's reading this, Carrie is a
Blue Book student - just like you guys.<<

?

Hi Stephen:

?

I think you better check this out with Carrie. She was claiming last week, that Helen got the Blue wrong. And of course, implying that she knew better.

?

~ Martha

Hi Gene,

I wonder if you will still be seen as "being nice".

Weren't you just giving your opinions and asking questions about
the book when you were seen as NOT being nice?

I just started it and keep picking up on things as I try to just
follow it like a story.

Like... comparing heaven to sex. "...very peak of a perfect sex
organism... never stops... keeps going on forever with no decrease...
powerful flawless intensity."

Maybe it's different "in heaven" (wherever that is, I thought we
were creating it (and/or hell) with our minds at any given time) but
seems like without the contrast of NOT having an orgasm, it would
become meaningless at some point.

Like not being aware of how fast you're going in an airplane without
being able to see something actually going by to judge it by.

I've tried to imagine what it would be like to have the money some
of the superstars (and sports players,etc) have. Like Madonna and
Oprah, for example. $80 million a year. J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)is
now a billionaire.

If one had enough money to buy anything they ever might want,
whenever they wanted it (even friends (LOL) wouldn't money, in a way
because almost worthless to them?

Because of there being now contrast?

Turning down the contrast on a t.v. or monitor, you have NOTHING.

Seems like living in a state of orgasmic bliss that never decreases
or stops would soon make this (feeling) meaningless also.

With nothing to compare it to.

Since this is (I think) a board set up to discuss the book and I am
now reading the book, I thought I'd start discussing it as I go along.

I also find myself thinking "didn't Gary feel kind of odd not
telling his wife about this and sharing it with her for all that
time?"

And, "how come Gary gets to sit home all day and do nothing
(meditate)- not even have kids to take care of and Karen has to go to
the city and work?"

So far I haven't been able to set aside logical thinking and just
believe it as a story.

Sort of like when I read THE CELESTINE PROPHECY, I couldn't get
past the terrible writing and lack of story. I kept thinking "why
didn't he just write it as a non fiction about the prophecies,
themselves?" Not saying Gary's book isn't well written. And I like
the clear dark printing, makes it easy to read.

And James Redfield didn't do too bad with his books,workshops,
tapes, etc. In spite of my being disappointed in the writing and lack
of story.

~ Carrie







-- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

--- In

Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"

<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

I didn't follow the discussion about Gary's book all that

closely

when it was the hot topic on the ng, but how I remember Gene

being

involved in it, didn't he question some of the facts in the book?
Like physics and mathematical statements?

This is what started one of the arguements and Gene's

conclusion

that the book was a hoax.

It's not what started it, but the numerous factual errors and
outright absurdities in it are enough by themselves to show the

book

is a hoax.

There has also been talk that maybe the mysterious "Nelson" who
started this egroup- but doesn't seem to be a part of it, is also
Gary's wife, Karen. Based on her past ways of promoting the book.

Nelson is King Log. I think Karen would more likely be Queen Stork.

I wasn't online when Marianne participated in her discussion boards,
but I used to read what others said about her doing it. And some
would tell me (I'd ask)

I never heard anything bad about this. She had no problems writing
and answering questions on her board, and even kept the "messages
from Marianne" board (nobody else could write on) going for a long
time, till her life took off and she got way too busy to participate
personally.

Everyone loved her on that board.

I did hear, a year after she closed the boards that people from
Endeaver Academy had been showing up at her talks and heckling her,
and then joking about it on the ACIM topic board (which they pretty
much took over. It wasn't much of a discussion, whatever you said to
them they'd reply ... "there is no world!" or "I love you" (LOL)

I didn't pay much attention to that topic, and "Healing of America"
(I thought it should be "Healing of our Mind" or at least "Healing
the Universe")

But, I'm sure if Marianne had had the time and inclination (or
guidance) to stay personally participating on her boards, she
wouldn't have gotten defensive and angry if someone asked her
questions or had less than positive opinions of her books.

I have seen her (years ago) handle people who stood up and yelled
at her from the audience of a live t.v. talk show, from an egoless
point of view.

Defusing the situation and everyone feeling better because of it.and
not having to be right by making the person wrong.

At the time I was on her boards (and she wasn't) Carolyn Myss had a
discussion board, that was stictly moderated/registered and people
were only allowed something like 5 posts a day on it.

I never even looked at it.

~ Carrie






--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just

about

every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing

Gary's

manuscript. In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine
fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either

project

our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we

are

taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother. Jung wrote about this as well; he once suggested that the
most important political act any individual could undertake was to
withdraw his projections from the world.

So whenever Gene tries to attack me, Gary, Ken Wapnick, or the

fence

post, I can tell that he's having a pretty terrific struggle with
what the psychologists call "self-esteem." I call him a fine

fellow --

and I suggest that you all do, too, in your own words -- because I
think that's the real truth of the matter and because he can
obviously use some strokes.

But Gary and I should probably apologize for always bringing such
fine fellows in our wake; we're the ones who came out with this

book

and have subsequently joined public discussion groups like we have
nothing to hide. Do something noticeable like that, and you'll

always

get a few fine fellows on your case sooner or later. Marianne used

to

participate in her own groups a little, but I can't rememember the
head of HarperCollins, her first publisher, coming out to back her

up

(LOL)!

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way

he

goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Cheers,
D. Patrick Miller
Fearless Books

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "mstreet"
<mastreet@t...> wrote:

Carrie wrote:

I've also thrown out ACIM topics and questions for possible

discussion on the ng and they mainly get ignored.<<

Hello Carrie:

I notice you have a few Course themes that you basically go over

and over to prove some kind of point. Like "if a brother asks you to
do something foolish, do it because it doesn't matter." Now I have
also heard people flat out telling you to "shut up." So would this
not be seen by you, as being a foolish request? Or are you, somehow
exempt from these foolish requests of others? And only think that
others should abide by them?

~ Martha

Of course, you are right. You are always just as right as I am.

If you can't resist the temptation to read what I write (which
would be a choice you could make to shut me up) then I'll stop
writing to you.

That should do it,huh?

And I am grateful to everyone who tells me to shut up.

Maybe at some point I'll start to remember it.

One of my life lessons.

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"
<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

Like... comparing heaven to sex. "...very peak of a perfect sex
organism... never stops... keeps going on forever with no

decrease...

powerful flawless intensity."

It's the sort of analogy someone with no real experience in such
matters might come up with. No worse than comparing Heaven to a coke
rush, but both miss the real point, which is that Heaven is not an
expression of the ego's ideas at all. The Ur tells us sex, as such,
is not actually pleasureable at all.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen"
<cracker.jack@n...> wrote:

From: mstreet
To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Actually, Gene's

being nice so far...

>>Very good post, Carrie. And for everyone who's reading this,

Carrie is a

Blue Book student - just like you guys.<<

Hi Stephen:

I think you better check this out with Carrie. She was claiming

last week, that Helen got the Blue wrong. And of course, implying
that she knew better.

~ Martha
I know what Carrie said about the Blue Book, Martha, but to my

knowledge she's not an Urtext or JCIM student.

Personally, I think she probably found that thing about 'doing a

foolish thing' to be wrong in ACIM because it was in her last
horoscope - but that's another story. And for God's sake don't ask
her what shape the Earth is.

(Only kidding, Carrie!)

~
Stephen

I didn't realize the "asking a foolish thing" topic would be such a
big deal, but it came in handy for Martha here.

When I first got the book I wrote to Ken Wapnick (not knowing
anyone else to ask) and one question was about that "brother
insisting you do a foolish thing" passage.

Ken wrote back saying something like it didn't really mean you have
to DO IT, but to think about why you object to doing it, if you don't
want to. I suppose in the event of an ego war between two people. One
asking you to do something you felt was foolish, and you strongly
resisting doing it.

He also pointed out the page where "Jesus apparently corrected it".

I thought it seemed out of place there, and guessed that maybe
Helen, after reading the first part (she had written down)
thought "oh no, people will be killing someone because a brother
strongly insisteed they do it" and stuck in that "correction"
about "I have told you if a brother insists you do a foolish thing to
do it, but don't do it if it would harm someone".

This didn't even seem to fit in the chapter it was in the middle of.

Oh I do have the blue book (1st and 2nd version) and have since 1990.

I also have the Urtext and HLC versions.

And a lot of tapes, like Marianne Williamson, Ken Wapnicks (from
long ago, listening to him for very long, I would feel hopeless and
depressed (LOL) and many others.

For the past few years I haven't been paying much attention to the
actual words. I think I've been in more a "jump in and try and live
it and see what I get reflected back" mode.

Around the time I found the internet.

It has been VERY educational and I've said many times I'm grateful
for all the lessons.

Some people probably think I'm being sarcastic, but it's not
intended that way.

Other than that, I'm a Sagittarius.

I like to think that explains a lot.

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

--- In

Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"

<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

Like... comparing heaven to sex. "...very peak of a perfect sex
organism... never stops... keeps going on forever with no

decrease...

powerful flawless intensity."

It's the sort of analogy someone with no real experience in such
matters might come up with. No worse than comparing Heaven to a

coke

rush, but both miss the real point, which is that Heaven is not an
expression of the ego's ideas at all. The Ur tells us sex, as such,
is not actually pleasureable at all.

A coke rush... and you know this how...? (LOL)

Would anyone be happy, or even survive, in a continual coke rush?

Would a continual orgasm remain exciting and pleasureable over any
amount of time?

We can either write to each other here (you, me and Stephen, the
outcasts- "you folks from the ng" or we can continue this back
ON "our" ng and leave these poor people in peace (and boredom).

All we're doing is creating more interest in the book and more
people are buying it to see what it's all about.

I haven't gotten past the first few pages, never got my orgamism
question answered, and never found out why Karen had to go to work to
support Gary, who sat home and meditated, and had this whole other
part of his life for 9 years he never shared with her.

Sounds like a t.v. movie of the week.

I thought my questions were pretty serious and legit, but I guess
Gary couldn't be bothered by them.

Great way to treat a possible future fan.

Or, as Jesus put it "the least of my bretheren".

Maybe now he's sold all those 120 or so copies to Endeaver Academy
the rest of his public doesn't matter anymore.

His loss...

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

Hmm... I seem to remember "hoaxer," "liar," and "fraud," just for
starters. "Idiotic" and "stupid", or words to that effect, were in
there somewhere.

Applied to you?

On the other hand, I have never questioned your

integrity, intelligence, education, etc., because I feel no need to
do so.

Or because you know it would be obvious nonsense.

How you feel about DISAPPEARANCE is admittedly not very significant
to me, however. As a publisher, I have to pay attention to how

*most*

people respond to the work I do.

That would be fine if it was a romance novel. It would even work if
it was some claptrap about the face on Mars. However, "screw the
intelligentsia" is irresponsible when the subject is salvation,
because now the subject is important. Utter disregard of and contempt
for demonstrable facts in this situation seems to me analogous to
publishing "Open Heart Surgery for Dummies", without checking the
qualifications of the author or getting an opinion on whether it
contained serious errors. I think you are acting out your anger and
unforgiveness issues with Jesus, who is, of course, the symbol of the
atonement itself.

On the first printing of

DISAPPEARANCE, almost sold out now, the positive/negative votes

seem

to be running about 1995 to 5, or an approval rate of 99.75%

(Please

check my math; it wasn't my strong suit in school.) I can live with
that!

Can you live with the ego bargain of selling out Jesus and the
atonement?